Cut university enrolment by one third, but keep funding as is: report

Maybe it shouldn’t be a given that any Canadian high school student with lacklustre grades and a modicum of ambition should get to go to university.

In a new paper commissioned by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and released Monday, University of Saskatchewan public policy professor Ken Coates takes aim at the “sense of entitlement” he sees pervading the Canadian postsecondary education model.

There’s a lot that’s familiar in “Career ready: Towards a national strategy for the mobilization of Canadian potential” : the bias against “blue-collar work” and the preoccupation with university degrees, the oft-cited skills gap and the educational disconnect with the realities of the Canadian economy.

But the tone is acerbic, and some will find a few of the recommendations a little jarring.

“Canada currently has a demand-driven approach to higher education. With the exception of externally controlled and accredited professional programs, the system is expected to accommodate virtually any young person who wishes to study at a postsecondary institution,” Coates writes.

“Every marginally talented student in the country can get into a college and most can get into a university, even though many are ill-suited or unprepared for the experience. Canada needs to shift away from this open-access approach – based on the idea that everyone ‘deserves’ a degree, or at least the chance to try to earn one – to one that is based on achievement, motivation and compatibility with national needs.”

One way to dramatically improve the quality of university education, Coates argues, would be to cut enrolment by “as much as 25 to 30 per cent” while maintaining funding at roughly the same levels.

Canadian society will always want the freedom of choice, but the Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation thinks governments can guide them in the right direction.

“Individuals who are willing to pay for education and training in fields of lesser priority should have the opportunity to do so, but with little or no government support,” he writes.

At the same time, where there are fields with high demand, both government and business should provide financial incentives to attract qualified students, such as scholarships, guaranteed summer jobs, and contingent loans.

That goes hand in hand with better information for students and parents about the needs of employers, projected three to five years into the future.

Universities, colleges, and applied-learning oriented polytechnics – which he thinks should play a larger role in Canadian higher education – should be required to provide up-to-date online data on graduates’ career and income experiences.

“(That data) would, in all likelihood, place greater pressure on institutions to devote more effort to preparing students for their eventual move into the workplace, and would reward institutions and programs with better outcomes,” Coates writes.

“Such an approach would likely steer more students toward polytechnics and cooperative education programs. Fewer students would be encouraged to pursue generalist university degrees.”

He’d also like to see what he calls competency-based evaluation processes for a range of sectors and occupations.

Just because someone has a degree or a diploma doesn’t mean they’re ready for the workforce, and too many employers are finding credentials that don’t come with expected skills.

“Competency-based evaluation processes are therefore needed. Whether the evaluation is performed at the level of the program, institution or employer (as some large firms currently do), a systematic, comparative and ideally nationwide system of competency testing would be revolutionary in impact,” he writes.

“Of course, the pushback from educational institutions would likely be considerable as well.”

Coates rounds out his recommendations with a call for more encouragement of entrepreneurship.

He cites the University of Waterloo’s Velocity initiative and the Shad Valley program for high school students as some examples to build on.

“Canada’s youth are encountering a clash of expectations. Large numbers of young people aspire to stable and secure jobs. The federal public service now tops the list of career preferences” he notes.

“The gap between expectations and outcomes will probably grow even wider for many young people. Those who possess that rare combination of drive, curiosity and intelligence – particularly in combination with scientific and technological prowess – will likely enjoy remarkable career opportunities. The future is bleaker for those with motivational challenges and limited skills.”

19 comments on “Cut university enrolment by one third, but keep funding as is: report”

During the course of a semester, I regularly come across college students who appear to have no direction, no focus and little interest in what they are studying. Their ability to achieve the class average is regularly in doubt and what troubles me is that the longer they stay in post-secondary institutions like mine, the longer they will feel dejected and beat down by as pedagogical system that focuses on success over self discovery. It is sad watching young people mark-time while other students excel and travel on their way towards further education or into the work force. I agree that a more focused system whereby we don’t offer everyone access to a general post secondary degree simply because they feel entitled to one. However a viable alternative has not been proposed whereby high school students are given some clear indication as to where their future’s lie. Perhaps this void is a result of the uncertain work conditions that now permeate North America.

From what I saw as a mature student in the late 90s at U of T and what an friend who teaches at University tells me we do seem
to be making a mistake by letting higher education be student demand driven
rather than looking at student ability and industry needs. Not only
do we let nearly everyone in but we also create seats in various fields based
on student demand rather than using financial incentives of lower tuition to
fill the seats our industries and country need to prosper. IMO many
of these suggestions are good especially using government support levels as a
tool to drive students towards fields that are not only better for their job
prospects but for the country’s economic well being. There will always be
the need and demand for education for education sake but there should also be
at least some attempt to make education relevant, practical, give tax payers a
return for their investment and end the wasteful devaluement of education where
youth end up in debt only to get jobs where their education wasn’t really
needed.

I’m not saying all this is perfect but I do think it’s time to have a big talk
on how our system is working and at least consider some changes.

Universities don’t have the same moral mission as businesses. So, really, what a council of business leaders say is going to have a very different message than what a university would. They’re trying to impose market authority onto education, essentially letting the market then dictate what the government (heavily-controlled by private interests who control the market) subsidizes, thus cutting out frames that don’t fit the specific narrative.

Obviously, and nobody says they are deciding anything. It’s a report CCCE has issued which lays out some of the issues, as they see them. All they are doing is putting the information out there to start a discussion about post-secondary education. Is there something in the report you disagree with, or do you think they should have the right to issue reports taken away?

They can issue reports weekly if they want, but the deflection doesn’t change the fact that this is still privateering by trying to undermine the moral mission of education towards a more market-oriented direction. If you feel so strongly about it, then you should have no problems framing it honestly, right? What they’re doing is meddling in a quasi-government mandate.

What moral mission do universities have? Did God bestow on them some kind of covenant that the rest of us aren’t aware of? Otherwise they have to make a case for getting taxpayers money by proving they are providing a benefit to the country.

If the CCCE is trying to “impose market authority onto education” by issuing a report, you are trying to impose your leftwing views by saying who is allowed to express an opinion on the university system. You should respect their right to make their case instead of belittling it as “meddling” while claiming you have some kind of moral mandate that cannot be challenged

That said, a corporation’s motive is profit. A (western) government’s motive is empathy, and progressive values if you view the constitution and charters of rights. A school’s moral objective is education and knowledge, not to feed us robots in a few small areas dictated by a bunch of hierarchal clowns.

You don’t like that I’m exposing how they’re basically issuing a threat, and then using DARVO tactics to deny and attack me, followed by reversing the victim and offender. Businesses can say whatever they want, but we’re allowed to expose what they’re surreptitiously trying to do. You’re trying to recreate a false narrative and dual-victimize me by not only attacking my idea, but me as a person. They can make their case, but if their case is framed dishonestly and taps into their limbic system, which is how the our reasoning works, it’s going to influence others who may not have the conceptual framework to understand exactly what’s going on.

The Enlightenment is over. Time to throw out the idea of universal reason. Politics are morality, and about neuroscience.

This nothing less than a Koch brothers’/Harper strategy to drive down the level of education of the masses.
A little reading tells it all.
This is sheer nonsense from and Canadians know damned well that Harper wants and needs to keep the public as stupid as he possibly can!
Shame on Coates and his gang!!!

On the other hand, as a univ prof, I can tell you that the writer is correct among many others who bemoan the “over-democratization” of a university education. Students are woefully unprepared for intensive study. It is a demoralizing affair for all involved when students don’t really want to be there, and are not fit for the rigour of academic study. Standards have dropped considerably, even at the graduate level.

I want a well-educated populace. But I think it starts in the home and the K-12 system which currently foster entitled narcissists who can’t write a proper sentence or think critically. They don’t want to read, they don’t want to work hard and they take exception to criticism of their work. Granted, this is a generalization for the sake of argument, but it has been my experience over 15 years, teaching at 8 different institutions, here and abroad. And it’s only getting worse. Smartest generation, my ass! Take a look at Bauerlein’s “The Dumbest Generation”, and “Ivory Tower Blues”.

The lack of preparedness undeniably rests within the shamefully lax elementary and secondary
school system.
This is a good and much needed conversation we should be having all across Canada.
It is shocking to listen to the absolutely horrid grammar used even by some journalists today.
Things like “him /her and a friend did…”, or my favourite, “me and some friends…”
I would love to see a law banning “me and!!!”
It is appalling to listen to some of the CBC people mangle the language and speak so poorly.
Until not too long ago, one didn’t get on the air until passing a very difficult demanding test.
Who can remember those hated little text books for grammar, which drove us nutty, but by God! to this day we are grateful for the rigid thorough and respectful use of the language.
But really, Harper fully intends to drive down education standards.
He and Manning would ne thrilled to see more universities at the mercy of big oil dollars and far more
so called Christian colleges.
Our press are failing us so massively it’s amazing that they can face themselves.

I have to chime in that it is one of the last common uses of” me”. It has disappeared from most vocabularies, replaced by the ubiquitous and precious” I” as the object of prepositions everywhere. ” Mom got it for her and I” . Complete reversal of the grammatical standard. I wonder why. My ears are ringing from just this morning’s errors.

The single most effective force promoting economic growth and reducing inequality is the diffusion of knowledge and skills. Universities are the primary institutions where young people can learn to think critically. So why would a corporate lobby group recommend limiting the university experience to a select few? Perhaps corporations and their right wing conservative brethren prefer that most young people don’t learn to think critically so they can be slavishly obedient cogs in the corporate wheel AND so that they are more likely to swallow the right wing ideology promoted by Canada’s Conservatives. It would be shocking to these people to see a plumber that was also well read, articulate and was concerned about the welfare of the larger community. These CEOs prefer blue collar workers who are vulnerable and unwilling to risk offending the corporate / conservative agenda. This organization is simply interested in one more way that corporate taxes can be reduced so the 1% can cash in on the short term, but long term economic benefits can be ignored.

Interesting paper, and more interesting comments. Now for my two or more cents. First, I don’t believe that post-secondary education is so clearly demand-driven as the paper suggests. Successive governments have committed billions of dollars to expanding the supply of post-secondary spaces since the 1970’s, and they have filled those spaces by preaching the benefits of higher education. Second, students are not getting a free ride. Public funding of post-secondary education has now declined to a bit more than 50%, the balance being paid by students. As an aside, given the steadily declining contributions of government, it seems to me extremely naive for the paper to suggest that government will continue the same level of funding for fewer students. Third, if academic standards are a problem, start failing people. If students feel entitled to a university education, maybe it’s because the secondary school system doesn’t enforce appropriate standards.